Pediatric News

Have you experienced malpractice?

No, I’m not asking whether you have experienced litigation. I’m asking whether you, as a physician, have actually experienced substandard care from a colleague. I have heard many such experiences over the years, and mistreatment doesn’t seem to be getting any less frequent.

It seems to me that physicians may be especially prone to receiving substandard care. If true, there could be several explanations. The first is that, unlike the Pope, who has a dedicated confessor trained to minister to his spiritual needs, no one formally trains physicians to treat physicians. As a result, most of us feel slightly uneasy at treating other physicians. We naturally wish to keep our colleagues well, but at the same time realize that our clinical skills are being very closely scrutinized. What if they are found to be wanting? This discomfiture can make a physician treating a physician overly compulsive, or worse, overtly dismissive.

Second, we physicians are famously poor patients. We pretend we don’t need the advice we give others, to monitor our health and promptly seek care when something feels amiss. And, for the period during which we delay a medical encounter, we often attempt to diagnose and treat ourselves.

Sometimes we are successful, which reinforces this approach. Other times, we fail at being our own caregiver and present to someone else either too late, or with avoidable complications. In the former instance, we congratulate ourselves and learn nothing from the experience. In the latter, we may heap shame upon ourselves for our folly, and we may learn; but it could be a lethal lesson. In the worst scenario, our colleague gives in to frustration (or angst), and heaps even more shame onto their late-presenting physician patient.

Third, when we do submit to being a patient, we often demand VIP treatment. This is probably in response to our anxiety that some of the worst things we have seen happen to patients might happen to us if we are not vigilant to ensure we receive a higher level of care. But of course, such hypervigilance can lead to excessive care and testing, with all the attendant hazards, or alternatively to dilution of care if our caregivers decide we are just too much trouble.

Fourth, as a fifth-generation physician myself, I am convinced that physicians and physician family members are either prone to unusual manifestations of common diseases or unusual diseases, or that rare disease entities and complications are actually more common than literature suggests, and they simply aren’t pursued or diagnosed in nonphysician families.

No matter how we may have arrived in a position to need medical care, how often is such care substandard? And how do we respond when we suspect, or know, this to be the case? Are physicians more, or less, likely to take legal action in the face of it?

I certainly don’t know any statistics. Physicians are in an excellent position to take such action, because judges and juries will likely believe that a doctor can recognize negligence when we fall victim to it. But we may also be reluctant to publicly admit the way (or ways) in which we may have contributed to substandard care or outcome.

Based on decades of working with physician clients who have been sued, and having been sued myself (thus witnessing and also experiencing the effects of litigation), I am probably more reluctant than normal patients or physicians to consider taking legal action. This, despite the fact that I am also a lawyer and (through organized medicine) know many colleagues in all specialties who might serve as expert witnesses.

I have experienced serial substandard care, which has left me highly conflicted about the efficacy of my chosen profession. As a resident, I had my first odd pain condition and consulted an “elder statesperson” from my institution, whom I assumed to be a “doctor’s doctor” because he was a superb teacher (wrong!)

He completely missed the diagnosis and further belittled (indeed, libeled) me in the medical record. (Some years later, I learned that, during that period, he was increasingly demented and tended to view all female patients as having “wandering uterus” equivalents.) Fortunately, I found a better diagnostician, or at least one more willing to lend credence to my complaints, who successfully removed the first of several “zebra” lesions I have experienced.

As a young faculty member, I had an odd presentation of a recurring gynecologic condition, which was treated surgically, successfully, except that my fertility was cut in half – a possibility about which I had not been informed when giving operative consent. Would I have sued this fellow faculty member for that? Never, because she invariably treated me with respect as a colleague.

Later in my career after leaving academia, the same condition recurred in a new location. My old-school gynecologist desired to do an extensive procedure, to which I demurred unless specific pathology was found intraoperatively. Affronted, he subjected me to laparoscopy, did nothing but look, and then left the hospital leaving me and the PACU nurse to try to decipher his instructions (which said, basically, “I didn’t find anything; don’t bother me again.”). Several years of pain later, a younger gynecologist performed the correct procedure to address my problem, which has never recurred. Would I have sued him? No, because I believe he had a disability.

At age 59, I developed a new mole. My beloved general practitioner, in the waning years of his practice, forgot to consult a colleague to remove it for several months. When I forced the issue, the mole was removed and turned out to be a rare pediatric condition considered a precursor to melanoma. The same general practitioner had told me I needn’t worry about my “mild hypercalcemia.”

Ten years later I diagnosed my own parathyroid adenoma, in the interim losing 10% of my bone density. Would I have sued him? No, for he always showed he cared. (Though maybe, if I had fractured my spine or hip.)

If you have been the victim of physician malpractice, how did you respond?

Do we serve our profession well by how we handle substandard care – upon ourselves (or our loved ones)?

Dr. Andrew is a former assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and founder and principal of MDMentor, Victoria, B.C.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Have you experienced malpractice?

No, I’m not asking whether you have experienced litigation. I’m asking whether you, as a physician, have actually experienced substandard care from a colleague. I have heard many such experiences over the years, and mistreatment doesn’t seem to be getting any less frequent.

It seems to me that physicians may be especially prone to receiving substandard care. If true, there could be several explanations. The first is that, unlike the Pope, who has a dedicated confessor trained to minister to his spiritual needs, no one formally trains physicians to treat physicians. As a result, most of us feel slightly uneasy at treating other physicians. We naturally wish to keep our colleagues well, but at the same time realize that our clinical skills are being very closely scrutinized. What if they are found to be wanting? This discomfiture can make a physician treating a physician overly compulsive, or worse, overtly dismissive.

Second, we physicians are famously poor patients. We pretend we don’t need the advice we give others, to monitor our health and promptly seek care when something feels amiss. And, for the period during which we delay a medical encounter, we often attempt to diagnose and treat ourselves.

Sometimes we are successful, which reinforces this approach. Other times, we fail at being our own caregiver and present to someone else either too late, or with avoidable complications. In the former instance, we congratulate ourselves and learn nothing from the experience. In the latter, we may heap shame upon ourselves for our folly, and we may learn; but it could be a lethal lesson. In the worst scenario, our colleague gives in to frustration (or angst), and heaps even more shame onto their late-presenting physician patient.

Third, when we do submit to being a patient, we often demand VIP treatment. This is probably in response to our anxiety that some of the worst things we have seen happen to patients might happen to us if we are not vigilant to ensure we receive a higher level of care. But of course, such hypervigilance can lead to excessive care and testing, with all the attendant hazards, or alternatively to dilution of care if our caregivers decide we are just too much trouble.

Fourth, as a fifth-generation physician myself, I am convinced that physicians and physician family members are either prone to unusual manifestations of common diseases or unusual diseases, or that rare disease entities and complications are actually more common than literature suggests, and they simply aren’t pursued or diagnosed in nonphysician families.

No matter how we may have arrived in a position to need medical care, how often is such care substandard? And how do we respond when we suspect, or know, this to be the case? Are physicians more, or less, likely to take legal action in the face of it?

I certainly don’t know any statistics. Physicians are in an excellent position to take such action, because judges and juries will likely believe that a doctor can recognize negligence when we fall victim to it. But we may also be reluctant to publicly admit the way (or ways) in which we may have contributed to substandard care or outcome.

Based on decades of working with physician clients who have been sued, and having been sued myself (thus witnessing and also experiencing the effects of litigation), I am probably more reluctant than normal patients or physicians to consider taking legal action. This, despite the fact that I am also a lawyer and (through organized medicine) know many colleagues in all specialties who might serve as expert witnesses.

I have experienced serial substandard care, which has left me highly conflicted about the efficacy of my chosen profession. As a resident, I had my first odd pain condition and consulted an “elder statesperson” from my institution, whom I assumed to be a “doctor’s doctor” because he was a superb teacher (wrong!)

He completely missed the diagnosis and further belittled (indeed, libeled) me in the medical record. (Some years later, I learned that, during that period, he was increasingly demented and tended to view all female patients as having “wandering uterus” equivalents.) Fortunately, I found a better diagnostician, or at least one more willing to lend credence to my complaints, who successfully removed the first of several “zebra” lesions I have experienced.

As a young faculty member, I had an odd presentation of a recurring gynecologic condition, which was treated surgically, successfully, except that my fertility was cut in half – a possibility about which I had not been informed when giving operative consent. Would I have sued this fellow faculty member for that? Never, because she invariably treated me with respect as a colleague.

Later in my career after leaving academia, the same condition recurred in a new location. My old-school gynecologist desired to do an extensive procedure, to which I demurred unless specific pathology was found intraoperatively. Affronted, he subjected me to laparoscopy, did nothing but look, and then left the hospital leaving me and the PACU nurse to try to decipher his instructions (which said, basically, “I didn’t find anything; don’t bother me again.”). Several years of pain later, a younger gynecologist performed the correct procedure to address my problem, which has never recurred. Would I have sued him? No, because I believe he had a disability.

At age 59, I developed a new mole. My beloved general practitioner, in the waning years of his practice, forgot to consult a colleague to remove it for several months. When I forced the issue, the mole was removed and turned out to be a rare pediatric condition considered a precursor to melanoma. The same general practitioner had told me I needn’t worry about my “mild hypercalcemia.”

Ten years later I diagnosed my own parathyroid adenoma, in the interim losing 10% of my bone density. Would I have sued him? No, for he always showed he cared. (Though maybe, if I had fractured my spine or hip.)

If you have been the victim of physician malpractice, how did you respond?

Do we serve our profession well by how we handle substandard care – upon ourselves (or our loved ones)?

Dr. Andrew is a former assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and founder and principal of MDMentor, Victoria, B.C.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Have you experienced malpractice?

No, I’m not asking whether you have experienced litigation. I’m asking whether you, as a physician, have actually experienced substandard care from a colleague. I have heard many such experiences over the years, and mistreatment doesn’t seem to be getting any less frequent.

It seems to me that physicians may be especially prone to receiving substandard care. If true, there could be several explanations. The first is that, unlike the Pope, who has a dedicated confessor trained to minister to his spiritual needs, no one formally trains physicians to treat physicians. As a result, most of us feel slightly uneasy at treating other physicians. We naturally wish to keep our colleagues well, but at the same time realize that our clinical skills are being very closely scrutinized. What if they are found to be wanting? This discomfiture can make a physician treating a physician overly compulsive, or worse, overtly dismissive.

Second, we physicians are famously poor patients. We pretend we don’t need the advice we give others, to monitor our health and promptly seek care when something feels amiss. And, for the period during which we delay a medical encounter, we often attempt to diagnose and treat ourselves.

Sometimes we are successful, which reinforces this approach. Other times, we fail at being our own caregiver and present to someone else either too late, or with avoidable complications. In the former instance, we congratulate ourselves and learn nothing from the experience. In the latter, we may heap shame upon ourselves for our folly, and we may learn; but it could be a lethal lesson. In the worst scenario, our colleague gives in to frustration (or angst), and heaps even more shame onto their late-presenting physician patient.

Third, when we do submit to being a patient, we often demand VIP treatment. This is probably in response to our anxiety that some of the worst things we have seen happen to patients might happen to us if we are not vigilant to ensure we receive a higher level of care. But of course, such hypervigilance can lead to excessive care and testing, with all the attendant hazards, or alternatively to dilution of care if our caregivers decide we are just too much trouble.

Fourth, as a fifth-generation physician myself, I am convinced that physicians and physician family members are either prone to unusual manifestations of common diseases or unusual diseases, or that rare disease entities and complications are actually more common than literature suggests, and they simply aren’t pursued or diagnosed in nonphysician families.

No matter how we may have arrived in a position to need medical care, how often is such care substandard? And how do we respond when we suspect, or know, this to be the case? Are physicians more, or less, likely to take legal action in the face of it?

I certainly don’t know any statistics. Physicians are in an excellent position to take such action, because judges and juries will likely believe that a doctor can recognize negligence when we fall victim to it. But we may also be reluctant to publicly admit the way (or ways) in which we may have contributed to substandard care or outcome.

Based on decades of working with physician clients who have been sued, and having been sued myself (thus witnessing and also experiencing the effects of litigation), I am probably more reluctant than normal patients or physicians to consider taking legal action. This, despite the fact that I am also a lawyer and (through organized medicine) know many colleagues in all specialties who might serve as expert witnesses.

I have experienced serial substandard care, which has left me highly conflicted about the efficacy of my chosen profession. As a resident, I had my first odd pain condition and consulted an “elder statesperson” from my institution, whom I assumed to be a “doctor’s doctor” because he was a superb teacher (wrong!)

He completely missed the diagnosis and further belittled (indeed, libeled) me in the medical record. (Some years later, I learned that, during that period, he was increasingly demented and tended to view all female patients as having “wandering uterus” equivalents.) Fortunately, I found a better diagnostician, or at least one more willing to lend credence to my complaints, who successfully removed the first of several “zebra” lesions I have experienced.

As a young faculty member, I had an odd presentation of a recurring gynecologic condition, which was treated surgically, successfully, except that my fertility was cut in half – a possibility about which I had not been informed when giving operative consent. Would I have sued this fellow faculty member for that? Never, because she invariably treated me with respect as a colleague.

Later in my career after leaving academia, the same condition recurred in a new location. My old-school gynecologist desired to do an extensive procedure, to which I demurred unless specific pathology was found intraoperatively. Affronted, he subjected me to laparoscopy, did nothing but look, and then left the hospital leaving me and the PACU nurse to try to decipher his instructions (which said, basically, “I didn’t find anything; don’t bother me again.”). Several years of pain later, a younger gynecologist performed the correct procedure to address my problem, which has never recurred. Would I have sued him? No, because I believe he had a disability.

At age 59, I developed a new mole. My beloved general practitioner, in the waning years of his practice, forgot to consult a colleague to remove it for several months. When I forced the issue, the mole was removed and turned out to be a rare pediatric condition considered a precursor to melanoma. The same general practitioner had told me I needn’t worry about my “mild hypercalcemia.”

Ten years later I diagnosed my own parathyroid adenoma, in the interim losing 10% of my bone density. Would I have sued him? No, for he always showed he cared. (Though maybe, if I had fractured my spine or hip.)

If you have been the victim of physician malpractice, how did you respond?

Do we serve our profession well by how we handle substandard care – upon ourselves (or our loved ones)?

Dr. Andrew is a former assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and founder and principal of MDMentor, Victoria, B.C.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic enters its third year, the death toll continues to rise and with it, the number of children who may be left without anyone to care for them.

By Oct. 31, 2021, more than 5 million people worldwide had died from COVID-19, and about 5.2 million children had lost a parent or caregiver, according to new research published in the Lancet Child and Adolescent Health.

Of particular note, wrote the authors, was how the number of affected children surged during the latter part of their study period. During the first 14 months of the pandemic (March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021), 2,737,300 children were affected by COVID-19-related caregiver death. But that number jumped by 90% during the next 6 months, from April 30 to Oct. 31, 2021, to 5,209,000. Essentially, the number of children who were affected nearly doubled, compared with those observed during that first year.

To put these numbers into perspective, study author Charles Nelson, PhD, professor of pediatrics and neuroscience and professor of psychology in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, compared it to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. “The current worldwide estimate is now approaching 6 million,” he said. “For HIV, it took 10 years before the number of orphans hit 5 million but for COVID it took 2 years. This should provide some perspective.”

Dr. Nelson pointed out that there are many other differences between the two pandemics. “There was no vaccine for HIV/AIDS, in contrast to the last year or so for COVID, when illness and death could largely be prevented,” he explained. “The politics surrounding HIV-related deaths seemed ‘relatively’ apolitical compared to COVID.”

Another major difference is that children whose parents had HIV were allowed to visit their parents, but for COVID-19, isolation was in place so many children could not see their parents before they died.

There is also more misinformation versus lack of information about COVID-19, compared to HIV/AIDS. “As an example, one young girl who lost her father to COVID was told by her classmates that her father hadn’t really died, he just abandoned the family,” Dr. Nelson said.
 

Minority communities face heaviest loss

A “companion study” was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which looked at parental/caregiver death just within the United States. During the period between April 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, the researchers found that more than 140,000 children under the age of 18 years had lost a parent, custodial grandparent, or grandparent caregiver because of COVID-19. In addition, there were significant racial, ethnic, and geographic disparities in COVID-19–associated death of caregivers, and the highest burden of death was observed in the Southern states along the U.S.-Mexican border for Hispanic children, Southeastern states for Black children, and in states with tribal areas for American Indian/Alaska Native populations. Overall, almost two-thirds (65%) of the children who lost a primary caregiver belonged to a racial or ethnic minority.

But as with the international data, the number of affected children has continued to rise since the end of the original study period. “Seth Flaxman, at Imperial College London, has updated the figures as of end of December for the U.S.,” said Dr. Nelson. The 140,000 has increased to 222,718 who lost a primary or secondary caregiver.

In addition, 192,449 lost a primary caregiver, 175,151 lost a parent, and 30,269 lost a secondary caregiver.

The rate, unfortunately, remains disproportionate to minorities. These data do reflect the inequities that have been observed since the beginning of the pandemic, as COVID-19 unequally affected many racial and ethnic minority groups and put them at a higher risk of severe illness and death. “Native Americans are four times more likely than Whites to be orphaned, and Black and Hispanic children 2.5 times more likely,” said Dr. Nelson.

The COVID Collaborative, a diverse group of leading experts from a wide range of disciplines including health, education, and economics, is working to develop consensus recommendations on pandemic-related issues such as vaccination of children who have lost caregivers. In December 2021, they released Hidden Pain: Children Who Lost a Parent or Caretaker to COVID-19 and What the Nation Can Do to Help Them, a report providing estimates of the number of children who lost a caregiver and concrete recommendations to support them.

“The death of an adult caregiver is life-altering for any child regardless of the circumstances or cause,” said Dan Treglia, PhD, associate professor of practice at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a contributor to Hidden Pain. “Traumatic grief is more common in sudden deaths like accidents where support systems are unable to mobilize in anticipation of the death and COVID-19 patients who die are typically in the hospital for barely a week before they pass.”

This suggests that responses to COVID-19 deaths may be more typical of sudden deaths than those of chronic illness such as cancer, he noted, adding that the pandemic has hindered the systems that children and their caregivers would normally rely on for support.

“Social distancing, for example, has limited informal community relationships critical for emotional health and in the current National Emergency in Children’s Mental Health, as noted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others, formal community-based and clinical services are overwhelmed,” said Dr. Treglia.

The authors of Hidden Pain note that the children most likely to lose a parent or other caregiver are generally the most likely to have faced “significant previous adversities that hinder their ability to successfully adapt to new experiences of adversity or trauma.” Studies have now revealed the magnitude of COVID-19–associated parent and caregiver death, and Dr. Treglia pointed out that action is needed from federal, state, and local policymakers to help children who have lost a caregiver to COVID-19.
 

Solutions needed now

“Their whole world has collapsed around them, as they have lost a provider of love, affection, developmental support, and in many cases a provider of critical financial support,” he said. “The federal government has an unparalleled ability to direct resources and attention and shape policy at lower levels of government, and its leadership is critical if we want to ensure care for COVID-bereaved children in all corners of the country.”

At least one state thus far is moving toward legislation to help this population. In California, a state with a high number of children who have lost a caregiver, the Hope, Opportunity, Perseverance, and Empowerment (HOPE) for Children Act has been introduced into the state legislature. If passed into law, children who lost a parent or caregiver to COVID-19 and are in the state’s foster care system or a low-income household would be eligible for a state-funded trust fund.

But while this is a start, the consequences of caregiver loss go far beyond the economics, and can include depression, PTSD, substance use disorder, lower levels of educational attainment, and subsequent lower levels of employment. However, most children (90%-95%) will experience a normative course of grief, according to the COVID Collaboration, which can be managed through family and social support systems. Community-based interventions, such as grief camps, peer support groups, or a mentoring program can also be very helpful.

Camp Erin, for example, is a bereavement camp for children aged 6-17 years. It is run by Eluna, a national nonprofit that supports children and families impacted by grief or addiction. “Camp Erin is the largest national bereavement program for children who are grieving the loss of a family member or caregiver, or other significant person in their lives,” said Mary FitzGerald, CEO of Eluna. “Many families needed help with these new dynamics of loss due to COVID.”

Led by bereavement professionals and volunteers, Camp Erin is a weekend experience that combines grief education and emotional support with traditional and fun activities. “It’s a safe environment for children to explore grief, and be with other children who are also grieving,” said Ms. FitzGerald. “There are 33 locations and it’s free of charge.”

Dr. Treglia emphasized the necessity of providing immediate financial assistance through well-established funding streams. “For example, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, and Social Security Survivor’s Benefits are a good start to reinforce their economic stability and keep financial disaster from piling onto their personal tragedy,” he said. “We also need to buttress community-based organizations and schools to ensure they have the resources and grief competence to identify bereaved children and can either provide services directly or refer them to organizations that can.”

He added that the infrastructure and knowledge already exist and “it’s a matter of making strategic investments at the necessary scale.”

As the COVID-19 pandemic enters its third year, the death toll continues to rise and with it, the number of children who may be left without anyone to care for them.

By Oct. 31, 2021, more than 5 million people worldwide had died from COVID-19, and about 5.2 million children had lost a parent or caregiver, according to new research published in the Lancet Child and Adolescent Health.

Of particular note, wrote the authors, was how the number of affected children surged during the latter part of their study period. During the first 14 months of the pandemic (March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021), 2,737,300 children were affected by COVID-19-related caregiver death. But that number jumped by 90% during the next 6 months, from April 30 to Oct. 31, 2021, to 5,209,000. Essentially, the number of children who were affected nearly doubled, compared with those observed during that first year.

To put these numbers into perspective, study author Charles Nelson, PhD, professor of pediatrics and neuroscience and professor of psychology in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, compared it to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. “The current worldwide estimate is now approaching 6 million,” he said. “For HIV, it took 10 years before the number of orphans hit 5 million but for COVID it took 2 years. This should provide some perspective.”

Dr. Nelson pointed out that there are many other differences between the two pandemics. “There was no vaccine for HIV/AIDS, in contrast to the last year or so for COVID, when illness and death could largely be prevented,” he explained. “The politics surrounding HIV-related deaths seemed ‘relatively’ apolitical compared to COVID.”

Another major difference is that children whose parents had HIV were allowed to visit their parents, but for COVID-19, isolation was in place so many children could not see their parents before they died.

There is also more misinformation versus lack of information about COVID-19, compared to HIV/AIDS. “As an example, one young girl who lost her father to COVID was told by her classmates that her father hadn’t really died, he just abandoned the family,” Dr. Nelson said.
 

Minority communities face heaviest loss

A “companion study” was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which looked at parental/caregiver death just within the United States. During the period between April 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, the researchers found that more than 140,000 children under the age of 18 years had lost a parent, custodial grandparent, or grandparent caregiver because of COVID-19. In addition, there were significant racial, ethnic, and geographic disparities in COVID-19–associated death of caregivers, and the highest burden of death was observed in the Southern states along the U.S.-Mexican border for Hispanic children, Southeastern states for Black children, and in states with tribal areas for American Indian/Alaska Native populations. Overall, almost two-thirds (65%) of the children who lost a primary caregiver belonged to a racial or ethnic minority.

But as with the international data, the number of affected children has continued to rise since the end of the original study period. “Seth Flaxman, at Imperial College London, has updated the figures as of end of December for the U.S.,” said Dr. Nelson. The 140,000 has increased to 222,718 who lost a primary or secondary caregiver.

In addition, 192,449 lost a primary caregiver, 175,151 lost a parent, and 30,269 lost a secondary caregiver.

The rate, unfortunately, remains disproportionate to minorities. These data do reflect the inequities that have been observed since the beginning of the pandemic, as COVID-19 unequally affected many racial and ethnic minority groups and put them at a higher risk of severe illness and death. “Native Americans are four times more likely than Whites to be orphaned, and Black and Hispanic children 2.5 times more likely,” said Dr. Nelson.

The COVID Collaborative, a diverse group of leading experts from a wide range of disciplines including health, education, and economics, is working to develop consensus recommendations on pandemic-related issues such as vaccination of children who have lost caregivers. In December 2021, they released Hidden Pain: Children Who Lost a Parent or Caretaker to COVID-19 and What the Nation Can Do to Help Them, a report providing estimates of the number of children who lost a caregiver and concrete recommendations to support them.

“The death of an adult caregiver is life-altering for any child regardless of the circumstances or cause,” said Dan Treglia, PhD, associate professor of practice at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a contributor to Hidden Pain. “Traumatic grief is more common in sudden deaths like accidents where support systems are unable to mobilize in anticipation of the death and COVID-19 patients who die are typically in the hospital for barely a week before they pass.”

This suggests that responses to COVID-19 deaths may be more typical of sudden deaths than those of chronic illness such as cancer, he noted, adding that the pandemic has hindered the systems that children and their caregivers would normally rely on for support.

“Social distancing, for example, has limited informal community relationships critical for emotional health and in the current National Emergency in Children’s Mental Health, as noted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others, formal community-based and clinical services are overwhelmed,” said Dr. Treglia.

The authors of Hidden Pain note that the children most likely to lose a parent or other caregiver are generally the most likely to have faced “significant previous adversities that hinder their ability to successfully adapt to new experiences of adversity or trauma.” Studies have now revealed the magnitude of COVID-19–associated parent and caregiver death, and Dr. Treglia pointed out that action is needed from federal, state, and local policymakers to help children who have lost a caregiver to COVID-19.
 

Solutions needed now

“Their whole world has collapsed around them, as they have lost a provider of love, affection, developmental support, and in many cases a provider of critical financial support,” he said. “The federal government has an unparalleled ability to direct resources and attention and shape policy at lower levels of government, and its leadership is critical if we want to ensure care for COVID-bereaved children in all corners of the country.”

At least one state thus far is moving toward legislation to help this population. In California, a state with a high number of children who have lost a caregiver, the Hope, Opportunity, Perseverance, and Empowerment (HOPE) for Children Act has been introduced into the state legislature. If passed into law, children who lost a parent or caregiver to COVID-19 and are in the state’s foster care system or a low-income household would be eligible for a state-funded trust fund.

But while this is a start, the consequences of caregiver loss go far beyond the economics, and can include depression, PTSD, substance use disorder, lower levels of educational attainment, and subsequent lower levels of employment. However, most children (90%-95%) will experience a normative course of grief, according to the COVID Collaboration, which can be managed through family and social support systems. Community-based interventions, such as grief camps, peer support groups, or a mentoring program can also be very helpful.

Camp Erin, for example, is a bereavement camp for children aged 6-17 years. It is run by Eluna, a national nonprofit that supports children and families impacted by grief or addiction. “Camp Erin is the largest national bereavement program for children who are grieving the loss of a family member or caregiver, or other significant person in their lives,” said Mary FitzGerald, CEO of Eluna. “Many families needed help with these new dynamics of loss due to COVID.”

Led by bereavement professionals and volunteers, Camp Erin is a weekend experience that combines grief education and emotional support with traditional and fun activities. “It’s a safe environment for children to explore grief, and be with other children who are also grieving,” said Ms. FitzGerald. “There are 33 locations and it’s free of charge.”

Dr. Treglia emphasized the necessity of providing immediate financial assistance through well-established funding streams. “For example, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, and Social Security Survivor’s Benefits are a good start to reinforce their economic stability and keep financial disaster from piling onto their personal tragedy,” he said. “We also need to buttress community-based organizations and schools to ensure they have the resources and grief competence to identify bereaved children and can either provide services directly or refer them to organizations that can.”

He added that the infrastructure and knowledge already exist and “it’s a matter of making strategic investments at the necessary scale.”

As the COVID-19 pandemic enters its third year, the death toll continues to rise and with it, the number of children who may be left without anyone to care for them.

By Oct. 31, 2021, more than 5 million people worldwide had died from COVID-19, and about 5.2 million children had lost a parent or caregiver, according to new research published in the Lancet Child and Adolescent Health.

Of particular note, wrote the authors, was how the number of affected children surged during the latter part of their study period. During the first 14 months of the pandemic (March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021), 2,737,300 children were affected by COVID-19-related caregiver death. But that number jumped by 90% during the next 6 months, from April 30 to Oct. 31, 2021, to 5,209,000. Essentially, the number of children who were affected nearly doubled, compared with those observed during that first year.

To put these numbers into perspective, study author Charles Nelson, PhD, professor of pediatrics and neuroscience and professor of psychology in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, compared it to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. “The current worldwide estimate is now approaching 6 million,” he said. “For HIV, it took 10 years before the number of orphans hit 5 million but for COVID it took 2 years. This should provide some perspective.”

Dr. Nelson pointed out that there are many other differences between the two pandemics. “There was no vaccine for HIV/AIDS, in contrast to the last year or so for COVID, when illness and death could largely be prevented,” he explained. “The politics surrounding HIV-related deaths seemed ‘relatively’ apolitical compared to COVID.”

Another major difference is that children whose parents had HIV were allowed to visit their parents, but for COVID-19, isolation was in place so many children could not see their parents before they died.

There is also more misinformation versus lack of information about COVID-19, compared to HIV/AIDS. “As an example, one young girl who lost her father to COVID was told by her classmates that her father hadn’t really died, he just abandoned the family,” Dr. Nelson said.
 

Minority communities face heaviest loss

A “companion study” was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which looked at parental/caregiver death just within the United States. During the period between April 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, the researchers found that more than 140,000 children under the age of 18 years had lost a parent, custodial grandparent, or grandparent caregiver because of COVID-19. In addition, there were significant racial, ethnic, and geographic disparities in COVID-19–associated death of caregivers, and the highest burden of death was observed in the Southern states along the U.S.-Mexican border for Hispanic children, Southeastern states for Black children, and in states with tribal areas for American Indian/Alaska Native populations. Overall, almost two-thirds (65%) of the children who lost a primary caregiver belonged to a racial or ethnic minority.

But as with the international data, the number of affected children has continued to rise since the end of the original study period. “Seth Flaxman, at Imperial College London, has updated the figures as of end of December for the U.S.,” said Dr. Nelson. The 140,000 has increased to 222,718 who lost a primary or secondary caregiver.

In addition, 192,449 lost a primary caregiver, 175,151 lost a parent, and 30,269 lost a secondary caregiver.

The rate, unfortunately, remains disproportionate to minorities. These data do reflect the inequities that have been observed since the beginning of the pandemic, as COVID-19 unequally affected many racial and ethnic minority groups and put them at a higher risk of severe illness and death. “Native Americans are four times more likely than Whites to be orphaned, and Black and Hispanic children 2.5 times more likely,” said Dr. Nelson.

The COVID Collaborative, a diverse group of leading experts from a wide range of disciplines including health, education, and economics, is working to develop consensus recommendations on pandemic-related issues such as vaccination of children who have lost caregivers. In December 2021, they released Hidden Pain: Children Who Lost a Parent or Caretaker to COVID-19 and What the Nation Can Do to Help Them, a report providing estimates of the number of children who lost a caregiver and concrete recommendations to support them.

“The death of an adult caregiver is life-altering for any child regardless of the circumstances or cause,” said Dan Treglia, PhD, associate professor of practice at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a contributor to Hidden Pain. “Traumatic grief is more common in sudden deaths like accidents where support systems are unable to mobilize in anticipation of the death and COVID-19 patients who die are typically in the hospital for barely a week before they pass.”

This suggests that responses to COVID-19 deaths may be more typical of sudden deaths than those of chronic illness such as cancer, he noted, adding that the pandemic has hindered the systems that children and their caregivers would normally rely on for support.

“Social distancing, for example, has limited informal community relationships critical for emotional health and in the current National Emergency in Children’s Mental Health, as noted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others, formal community-based and clinical services are overwhelmed,” said Dr. Treglia.

The authors of Hidden Pain note that the children most likely to lose a parent or other caregiver are generally the most likely to have faced “significant previous adversities that hinder their ability to successfully adapt to new experiences of adversity or trauma.” Studies have now revealed the magnitude of COVID-19–associated parent and caregiver death, and Dr. Treglia pointed out that action is needed from federal, state, and local policymakers to help children who have lost a caregiver to COVID-19.
 

Solutions needed now

“Their whole world has collapsed around them, as they have lost a provider of love, affection, developmental support, and in many cases a provider of critical financial support,” he said. “The federal government has an unparalleled ability to direct resources and attention and shape policy at lower levels of government, and its leadership is critical if we want to ensure care for COVID-bereaved children in all corners of the country.”

At least one state thus far is moving toward legislation to help this population. In California, a state with a high number of children who have lost a caregiver, the Hope, Opportunity, Perseverance, and Empowerment (HOPE) for Children Act has been introduced into the state legislature. If passed into law, children who lost a parent or caregiver to COVID-19 and are in the state’s foster care system or a low-income household would be eligible for a state-funded trust fund.

But while this is a start, the consequences of caregiver loss go far beyond the economics, and can include depression, PTSD, substance use disorder, lower levels of educational attainment, and subsequent lower levels of employment. However, most children (90%-95%) will experience a normative course of grief, according to the COVID Collaboration, which can be managed through family and social support systems. Community-based interventions, such as grief camps, peer support groups, or a mentoring program can also be very helpful.

Camp Erin, for example, is a bereavement camp for children aged 6-17 years. It is run by Eluna, a national nonprofit that supports children and families impacted by grief or addiction. “Camp Erin is the largest national bereavement program for children who are grieving the loss of a family member or caregiver, or other significant person in their lives,” said Mary FitzGerald, CEO of Eluna. “Many families needed help with these new dynamics of loss due to COVID.”

Led by bereavement professionals and volunteers, Camp Erin is a weekend experience that combines grief education and emotional support with traditional and fun activities. “It’s a safe environment for children to explore grief, and be with other children who are also grieving,” said Ms. FitzGerald. “There are 33 locations and it’s free of charge.”

Dr. Treglia emphasized the necessity of providing immediate financial assistance through well-established funding streams. “For example, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, and Social Security Survivor’s Benefits are a good start to reinforce their economic stability and keep financial disaster from piling onto their personal tragedy,” he said. “We also need to buttress community-based organizations and schools to ensure they have the resources and grief competence to identify bereaved children and can either provide services directly or refer them to organizations that can.”

He added that the infrastructure and knowledge already exist and “it’s a matter of making strategic investments at the necessary scale.”

On Feb. 17, 2022, the updated Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule was released by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pediatric providers across the country eagerly await this annual update to learn what changes lie in store for recommended immunization practices. During the week that has gone by since the 2022 release, I’ve had a chance to reflect on some of the highlights that are worth noting.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) vaccines are not on the schedule yet, undoubtedly because of the preliminary nature of the vaccine data for children and the emergency use authorization vaccine status. We currently have interim recommendations for childhood COVID-19 vaccines.
 

Brand new in 2022

Two new items in the 2022 schedules are worth reviewing. The first is an entirely new recommendation to administer dengue vaccine to children aged 9-16 years living in endemic areas, but only if they already have laboratory-confirmed past dengue infection. For U.S. practitioners, the endemic areas to remember are Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin islands in the Caribbean, as well as Pacific island areas, such as the Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia. There is a link in the document to additional recommendations.

The second totally new item is the combination preparation, Vaxelis, which contains DTaP, inactivated poliovirus, Haemophilus influenzae b conjugate, and hepatitis B vaccines. There are extensive recommendations for how to work it into the vaccine schedule, including some situations when it should not be used.
 

Selected reminders in childhood immunization

I’ll start with some key reminders about what not to do. Remember that the live inactivated influenza virus vaccine (LAIV) is recommended to begin only at age 2 years and older, compared with the inactivated influenza vaccine, which begins at 6 months. In addition, LAIV is contraindicated in patients aged 2-4 years who have a history of asthma or wheezing. Remember to avoid live virus vaccines, such as LAIV, MMR, and varicella, during pregnancy but be ready to administer those vaccines right after delivery. Similarly, HPV vaccine should be delayed until after pregnancy.

There are many special situation recommendations; I’ll highlight only a few here. One reminder is that although MMR and hepatitis A are both recommended to begin at 12 months, infants aged 6-11 months who are undergoing international travel to high-risk areas can begin with one dose before departure and then receive a two-dose series after turning 12 months of age.

Pneumococcal vaccination. Some children should receive both the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23). Those groups include children with chronic heart disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, cerebral spinal fluid leaks or cochlear implants, and sickle cell disease, as well as many other immunocompromising conditions. Kids who need both preparations should receive the conjugate vaccine first, but they should never receive the conjugate vaccine and the polysaccharide vaccine at the same visit.

Meningococcal vaccination. Meningococcal vaccine special situations can be quite complicated. For meningococcus A,C,W,Y (MenACWY) vaccination, children with immunocompromising conditions should receive different schedules from those of typical children, but the recommendations vary by preparation.

For adolescents aged 16-23 years, the decision whether to administer the meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) vaccine is based on shared clinical decision-making, a recommendation that began in 2020. Patients with certain immunocompromising conditions are considered at higher risk and should more routinely receive MenB vaccination, with recommendations varying depending on the preparation utilized. The MenB preparations are not interchangeable. In addition, patients may receive both MenACWY and MenB vaccines on the same day, but they should be given at different body sites.
 

A few final reminders

In certain cases, you might avoid administering what would otherwise be routine vaccinations. For example, the rotavirus series should not begin if the infant is aged 15 weeks or older. Only one dose of Haemophilus influenzae b vaccine is indicated after age 15 months and none at 60 months or older if the child does not have high-risk conditions.

Finally, the total number of doses for some vaccines, such as pneumococcus and polio, vary depending on how old the child is if not already fully vaccinated. For example, for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine catch-up in a healthy child, one dose after age 24 months would bring the child up to date. For inactivated poliovirus in children aged 4 years or older, a third dose given at least 6 months after the second dose would bring that child up to date.

The tables can be a challenge to interpret, but fortunately simpler tables for parents are available. These make excellent handouts to have available in the office!
 

Dr. Basco is professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Feb. 17, 2022, the updated Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule was released by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pediatric providers across the country eagerly await this annual update to learn what changes lie in store for recommended immunization practices. During the week that has gone by since the 2022 release, I’ve had a chance to reflect on some of the highlights that are worth noting.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) vaccines are not on the schedule yet, undoubtedly because of the preliminary nature of the vaccine data for children and the emergency use authorization vaccine status. We currently have interim recommendations for childhood COVID-19 vaccines.
 

Brand new in 2022

Two new items in the 2022 schedules are worth reviewing. The first is an entirely new recommendation to administer dengue vaccine to children aged 9-16 years living in endemic areas, but only if they already have laboratory-confirmed past dengue infection. For U.S. practitioners, the endemic areas to remember are Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin islands in the Caribbean, as well as Pacific island areas, such as the Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia. There is a link in the document to additional recommendations.

The second totally new item is the combination preparation, Vaxelis, which contains DTaP, inactivated poliovirus, Haemophilus influenzae b conjugate, and hepatitis B vaccines. There are extensive recommendations for how to work it into the vaccine schedule, including some situations when it should not be used.
 

Selected reminders in childhood immunization

I’ll start with some key reminders about what not to do. Remember that the live inactivated influenza virus vaccine (LAIV) is recommended to begin only at age 2 years and older, compared with the inactivated influenza vaccine, which begins at 6 months. In addition, LAIV is contraindicated in patients aged 2-4 years who have a history of asthma or wheezing. Remember to avoid live virus vaccines, such as LAIV, MMR, and varicella, during pregnancy but be ready to administer those vaccines right after delivery. Similarly, HPV vaccine should be delayed until after pregnancy.

There are many special situation recommendations; I’ll highlight only a few here. One reminder is that although MMR and hepatitis A are both recommended to begin at 12 months, infants aged 6-11 months who are undergoing international travel to high-risk areas can begin with one dose before departure and then receive a two-dose series after turning 12 months of age.

Pneumococcal vaccination. Some children should receive both the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23). Those groups include children with chronic heart disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, cerebral spinal fluid leaks or cochlear implants, and sickle cell disease, as well as many other immunocompromising conditions. Kids who need both preparations should receive the conjugate vaccine first, but they should never receive the conjugate vaccine and the polysaccharide vaccine at the same visit.

Meningococcal vaccination. Meningococcal vaccine special situations can be quite complicated. For meningococcus A,C,W,Y (MenACWY) vaccination, children with immunocompromising conditions should receive different schedules from those of typical children, but the recommendations vary by preparation.

For adolescents aged 16-23 years, the decision whether to administer the meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) vaccine is based on shared clinical decision-making, a recommendation that began in 2020. Patients with certain immunocompromising conditions are considered at higher risk and should more routinely receive MenB vaccination, with recommendations varying depending on the preparation utilized. The MenB preparations are not interchangeable. In addition, patients may receive both MenACWY and MenB vaccines on the same day, but they should be given at different body sites.
 

A few final reminders

In certain cases, you might avoid administering what would otherwise be routine vaccinations. For example, the rotavirus series should not begin if the infant is aged 15 weeks or older. Only one dose of Haemophilus influenzae b vaccine is indicated after age 15 months and none at 60 months or older if the child does not have high-risk conditions.

Finally, the total number of doses for some vaccines, such as pneumococcus and polio, vary depending on how old the child is if not already fully vaccinated. For example, for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine catch-up in a healthy child, one dose after age 24 months would bring the child up to date. For inactivated poliovirus in children aged 4 years or older, a third dose given at least 6 months after the second dose would bring that child up to date.

The tables can be a challenge to interpret, but fortunately simpler tables for parents are available. These make excellent handouts to have available in the office!
 

Dr. Basco is professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Feb. 17, 2022, the updated Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule was released by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pediatric providers across the country eagerly await this annual update to learn what changes lie in store for recommended immunization practices. During the week that has gone by since the 2022 release, I’ve had a chance to reflect on some of the highlights that are worth noting.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) vaccines are not on the schedule yet, undoubtedly because of the preliminary nature of the vaccine data for children and the emergency use authorization vaccine status. We currently have interim recommendations for childhood COVID-19 vaccines.
 

Brand new in 2022

Two new items in the 2022 schedules are worth reviewing. The first is an entirely new recommendation to administer dengue vaccine to children aged 9-16 years living in endemic areas, but only if they already have laboratory-confirmed past dengue infection. For U.S. practitioners, the endemic areas to remember are Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin islands in the Caribbean, as well as Pacific island areas, such as the Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia. There is a link in the document to additional recommendations.

The second totally new item is the combination preparation, Vaxelis, which contains DTaP, inactivated poliovirus, Haemophilus influenzae b conjugate, and hepatitis B vaccines. There are extensive recommendations for how to work it into the vaccine schedule, including some situations when it should not be used.
 

Selected reminders in childhood immunization

I’ll start with some key reminders about what not to do. Remember that the live inactivated influenza virus vaccine (LAIV) is recommended to begin only at age 2 years and older, compared with the inactivated influenza vaccine, which begins at 6 months. In addition, LAIV is contraindicated in patients aged 2-4 years who have a history of asthma or wheezing. Remember to avoid live virus vaccines, such as LAIV, MMR, and varicella, during pregnancy but be ready to administer those vaccines right after delivery. Similarly, HPV vaccine should be delayed until after pregnancy.

There are many special situation recommendations; I’ll highlight only a few here. One reminder is that although MMR and hepatitis A are both recommended to begin at 12 months, infants aged 6-11 months who are undergoing international travel to high-risk areas can begin with one dose before departure and then receive a two-dose series after turning 12 months of age.

Pneumococcal vaccination. Some children should receive both the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23). Those groups include children with chronic heart disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, cerebral spinal fluid leaks or cochlear implants, and sickle cell disease, as well as many other immunocompromising conditions. Kids who need both preparations should receive the conjugate vaccine first, but they should never receive the conjugate vaccine and the polysaccharide vaccine at the same visit.

Meningococcal vaccination. Meningococcal vaccine special situations can be quite complicated. For meningococcus A,C,W,Y (MenACWY) vaccination, children with immunocompromising conditions should receive different schedules from those of typical children, but the recommendations vary by preparation.

For adolescents aged 16-23 years, the decision whether to administer the meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) vaccine is based on shared clinical decision-making, a recommendation that began in 2020. Patients with certain immunocompromising conditions are considered at higher risk and should more routinely receive MenB vaccination, with recommendations varying depending on the preparation utilized. The MenB preparations are not interchangeable. In addition, patients may receive both MenACWY and MenB vaccines on the same day, but they should be given at different body sites.
 

A few final reminders

In certain cases, you might avoid administering what would otherwise be routine vaccinations. For example, the rotavirus series should not begin if the infant is aged 15 weeks or older. Only one dose of Haemophilus influenzae b vaccine is indicated after age 15 months and none at 60 months or older if the child does not have high-risk conditions.

Finally, the total number of doses for some vaccines, such as pneumococcus and polio, vary depending on how old the child is if not already fully vaccinated. For example, for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine catch-up in a healthy child, one dose after age 24 months would bring the child up to date. For inactivated poliovirus in children aged 4 years or older, a third dose given at least 6 months after the second dose would bring that child up to date.

The tables can be a challenge to interpret, but fortunately simpler tables for parents are available. These make excellent handouts to have available in the office!
 

Dr. Basco is professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LAS VEGAS – When evaluating adolescents for suspected substance use disorders, don’t forget to assess for medical conditions such as sexually transmitted diseases and hepatitis C, Timothy E. Wilens, MD, advised during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

“We see high rates of STDs, and we have about 10% of our kids who use opioids who already have hepatitis C,” said Dr. Wilens, who is chief of the division of child & adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “These are kids who may be 16, 17, or 18.”

While the CRAFTT Screening Test has been widely used to screen for substance-related risks and problems in adolescents, another more recent option is the Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI). Both tools collect information about both alcohol and drug use, are supported by strong research, are available for free, and are easy to use, Dr. Wilens said.

After you generate a differential diagnosis for psychiatric/medical symptoms, clinicians should order urine, saliva, or hair toxicology screens. “We don’t recommend that toxicology screens be done by parents; we do the toxicology screens,” he said. “Be careful about certain things like limitations of detection in the case of high-potency benzodiazepines and duration of detection in the case of marijuana use. The other thing is some of our screens can be used qualitatively or quantitatively. Why is that helpful? If you’re following someone who’s on marijuana and they’re cutting back, you can see if use [really] goes down over time.”

In Dr. Wilen’s clinical experience, efforts to stabilize adolescents with substance use disorders are most effective when patients join support groups comprised of other people from similar sociodemographic backgrounds. “There are different self-help philosophies, but when you’re referring, I always tell people: ‘Have the kid look in a mirror.’ So, if you have an LGBTQ patient from the inner city, that person should not be going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting of middle-aged persons in the suburbs. That’s not going to work for them. You want them to be with very similar sociodemographic groups if possible.”

Support groups for parents are also helpful. “There are two levels here: Peer groups of parents that help each other with support and find referrals, and there are parent coaching groups, where you have patients work with professionals,” said Dr. Wilens, who is also codirector of the MGH Center for Addiction Medicine. He advises parents to avoid “tough love” as the first step in efforts to help their child. “Tough love is, you throw the kid out of the house because they won’t stop using,” he said. “Where do you think the kid lives if they’re not at home? Where do you think they’re going to go? Maybe to the home of a friend or a family member for 1 or 2 nights but otherwise they’re living on the streets. How do you think they’re going to make a living if they’re living on the streets? They either sell drugs, or they get involved in prostitution. I have worked with more kids who are furious at their parents because they threw them out of the house. I understand where the patients are coming from, but maybe have a graduated exit instead, where the kid has to sleep outside in a camper for 2 nights, or in an isolated room in the house, or to grandma’s house, which smells like mothballs. Have a graduated approach.”

Psychotherapy is the mainstay of treatment and begins with motivational interviewing. To foster a collaborative connection, Dr. Wilens advises clinicians to discuss issues that are problematic instead of focusing on the substance use right off the bat. “Rather than go right to saying, ‘let’s talk about you smoking too much marijuana,’ instead say, ‘what is it you think may be causing the fights with your parents?’ Or, maybe their peer group isn’t accepting them like they used to.”

In his experience, adolescents respond well to goal setting. For example, for patients who say they’re smoking marijuana every day, Dr. Wilens may ask if they can cut back use to three days per week. “I’ll say: ‘I’m going to write this down in the chart,’ ” he said. “They start to work on it. If they come back and they didn’t reach that goal I say: ‘If you can’t cut back it’s okay; I just need to know it.’ ” He also recommends “sobriety sampling” which asks the patient to make a minimal commitment to stop using, for say, 30 days. “Don’t forget to monitor substance use during follow-up meetings.”

According to Dr. Wilens, child psychiatrists can help prevent substance abuse by encouraging discussion within families by the time kids are in fifth grade and encouraging parents to monitor children’s activities, friends, and personal space. “Privacy is a relative term,” he said. “It’s good you’re in their space. Make their beds; go into their bedroom.” He also advises parents to not smoke marijuana behind their kids’ backs. “I love it when parents tell me: ‘They don’t know I smoke marijuana.’ My counter to that is ‘not only do they know, they’re smoking your marijuana.’ ”

He concluded his remarks by encouraging child psychiatrists to advocate for sensible public laws related to marijuana and other substances. “Zero tolerance laws don’t work, because 85% of kids experiment [with drugs],” said Dr. Wilens, who is also professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “It works great until it’s your kid or a neighbor’s kid who’s a good kid but gets thrown out of school.”

Dr. Wilens reported that he has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. He has also served as a consultant to Vallon and has a licensing/collaborative agreement with Ironshore and 3D Therapy.

LAS VEGAS – When evaluating adolescents for suspected substance use disorders, don’t forget to assess for medical conditions such as sexually transmitted diseases and hepatitis C, Timothy E. Wilens, MD, advised during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

“We see high rates of STDs, and we have about 10% of our kids who use opioids who already have hepatitis C,” said Dr. Wilens, who is chief of the division of child & adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “These are kids who may be 16, 17, or 18.”

While the CRAFTT Screening Test has been widely used to screen for substance-related risks and problems in adolescents, another more recent option is the Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI). Both tools collect information about both alcohol and drug use, are supported by strong research, are available for free, and are easy to use, Dr. Wilens said.

After you generate a differential diagnosis for psychiatric/medical symptoms, clinicians should order urine, saliva, or hair toxicology screens. “We don’t recommend that toxicology screens be done by parents; we do the toxicology screens,” he said. “Be careful about certain things like limitations of detection in the case of high-potency benzodiazepines and duration of detection in the case of marijuana use. The other thing is some of our screens can be used qualitatively or quantitatively. Why is that helpful? If you’re following someone who’s on marijuana and they’re cutting back, you can see if use [really] goes down over time.”

In Dr. Wilen’s clinical experience, efforts to stabilize adolescents with substance use disorders are most effective when patients join support groups comprised of other people from similar sociodemographic backgrounds. “There are different self-help philosophies, but when you’re referring, I always tell people: ‘Have the kid look in a mirror.’ So, if you have an LGBTQ patient from the inner city, that person should not be going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting of middle-aged persons in the suburbs. That’s not going to work for them. You want them to be with very similar sociodemographic groups if possible.”

Support groups for parents are also helpful. “There are two levels here: Peer groups of parents that help each other with support and find referrals, and there are parent coaching groups, where you have patients work with professionals,” said Dr. Wilens, who is also codirector of the MGH Center for Addiction Medicine. He advises parents to avoid “tough love” as the first step in efforts to help their child. “Tough love is, you throw the kid out of the house because they won’t stop using,” he said. “Where do you think the kid lives if they’re not at home? Where do you think they’re going to go? Maybe to the home of a friend or a family member for 1 or 2 nights but otherwise they’re living on the streets. How do you think they’re going to make a living if they’re living on the streets? They either sell drugs, or they get involved in prostitution. I have worked with more kids who are furious at their parents because they threw them out of the house. I understand where the patients are coming from, but maybe have a graduated exit instead, where the kid has to sleep outside in a camper for 2 nights, or in an isolated room in the house, or to grandma’s house, which smells like mothballs. Have a graduated approach.”

Psychotherapy is the mainstay of treatment and begins with motivational interviewing. To foster a collaborative connection, Dr. Wilens advises clinicians to discuss issues that are problematic instead of focusing on the substance use right off the bat. “Rather than go right to saying, ‘let’s talk about you smoking too much marijuana,’ instead say, ‘what is it you think may be causing the fights with your parents?’ Or, maybe their peer group isn’t accepting them like they used to.”

In his experience, adolescents respond well to goal setting. For example, for patients who say they’re smoking marijuana every day, Dr. Wilens may ask if they can cut back use to three days per week. “I’ll say: ‘I’m going to write this down in the chart,’ ” he said. “They start to work on it. If they come back and they didn’t reach that goal I say: ‘If you can’t cut back it’s okay; I just need to know it.’ ” He also recommends “sobriety sampling” which asks the patient to make a minimal commitment to stop using, for say, 30 days. “Don’t forget to monitor substance use during follow-up meetings.”

According to Dr. Wilens, child psychiatrists can help prevent substance abuse by encouraging discussion within families by the time kids are in fifth grade and encouraging parents to monitor children’s activities, friends, and personal space. “Privacy is a relative term,” he said. “It’s good you’re in their space. Make their beds; go into their bedroom.” He also advises parents to not smoke marijuana behind their kids’ backs. “I love it when parents tell me: ‘They don’t know I smoke marijuana.’ My counter to that is ‘not only do they know, they’re smoking your marijuana.’ ”

He concluded his remarks by encouraging child psychiatrists to advocate for sensible public laws related to marijuana and other substances. “Zero tolerance laws don’t work, because 85% of kids experiment [with drugs],” said Dr. Wilens, who is also professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “It works great until it’s your kid or a neighbor’s kid who’s a good kid but gets thrown out of school.”

Dr. Wilens reported that he has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. He has also served as a consultant to Vallon and has a licensing/collaborative agreement with Ironshore and 3D Therapy.

LAS VEGAS – When evaluating adolescents for suspected substance use disorders, don’t forget to assess for medical conditions such as sexually transmitted diseases and hepatitis C, Timothy E. Wilens, MD, advised during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

“We see high rates of STDs, and we have about 10% of our kids who use opioids who already have hepatitis C,” said Dr. Wilens, who is chief of the division of child & adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “These are kids who may be 16, 17, or 18.”

While the CRAFTT Screening Test has been widely used to screen for substance-related risks and problems in adolescents, another more recent option is the Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI). Both tools collect information about both alcohol and drug use, are supported by strong research, are available for free, and are easy to use, Dr. Wilens said.

After you generate a differential diagnosis for psychiatric/medical symptoms, clinicians should order urine, saliva, or hair toxicology screens. “We don’t recommend that toxicology screens be done by parents; we do the toxicology screens,” he said. “Be careful about certain things like limitations of detection in the case of high-potency benzodiazepines and duration of detection in the case of marijuana use. The other thing is some of our screens can be used qualitatively or quantitatively. Why is that helpful? If you’re following someone who’s on marijuana and they’re cutting back, you can see if use [really] goes down over time.”

In Dr. Wilen’s clinical experience, efforts to stabilize adolescents with substance use disorders are most effective when patients join support groups comprised of other people from similar sociodemographic backgrounds. “There are different self-help philosophies, but when you’re referring, I always tell people: ‘Have the kid look in a mirror.’ So, if you have an LGBTQ patient from the inner city, that person should not be going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting of middle-aged persons in the suburbs. That’s not going to work for them. You want them to be with very similar sociodemographic groups if possible.”

Support groups for parents are also helpful. “There are two levels here: Peer groups of parents that help each other with support and find referrals, and there are parent coaching groups, where you have patients work with professionals,” said Dr. Wilens, who is also codirector of the MGH Center for Addiction Medicine. He advises parents to avoid “tough love” as the first step in efforts to help their child. “Tough love is, you throw the kid out of the house because they won’t stop using,” he said. “Where do you think the kid lives if they’re not at home? Where do you think they’re going to go? Maybe to the home of a friend or a family member for 1 or 2 nights but otherwise they’re living on the streets. How do you think they’re going to make a living if they’re living on the streets? They either sell drugs, or they get involved in prostitution. I have worked with more kids who are furious at their parents because they threw them out of the house. I understand where the patients are coming from, but maybe have a graduated exit instead, where the kid has to sleep outside in a camper for 2 nights, or in an isolated room in the house, or to grandma’s house, which smells like mothballs. Have a graduated approach.”

Psychotherapy is the mainstay of treatment and begins with motivational interviewing. To foster a collaborative connection, Dr. Wilens advises clinicians to discuss issues that are problematic instead of focusing on the substance use right off the bat. “Rather than go right to saying, ‘let’s talk about you smoking too much marijuana,’ instead say, ‘what is it you think may be causing the fights with your parents?’ Or, maybe their peer group isn’t accepting them like they used to.”

In his experience, adolescents respond well to goal setting. For example, for patients who say they’re smoking marijuana every day, Dr. Wilens may ask if they can cut back use to three days per week. “I’ll say: ‘I’m going to write this down in the chart,’ ” he said. “They start to work on it. If they come back and they didn’t reach that goal I say: ‘If you can’t cut back it’s okay; I just need to know it.’ ” He also recommends “sobriety sampling” which asks the patient to make a minimal commitment to stop using, for say, 30 days. “Don’t forget to monitor substance use during follow-up meetings.”

According to Dr. Wilens, child psychiatrists can help prevent substance abuse by encouraging discussion within families by the time kids are in fifth grade and encouraging parents to monitor children’s activities, friends, and personal space. “Privacy is a relative term,” he said. “It’s good you’re in their space. Make their beds; go into their bedroom.” He also advises parents to not smoke marijuana behind their kids’ backs. “I love it when parents tell me: ‘They don’t know I smoke marijuana.’ My counter to that is ‘not only do they know, they’re smoking your marijuana.’ ”

He concluded his remarks by encouraging child psychiatrists to advocate for sensible public laws related to marijuana and other substances. “Zero tolerance laws don’t work, because 85% of kids experiment [with drugs],” said Dr. Wilens, who is also professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “It works great until it’s your kid or a neighbor’s kid who’s a good kid but gets thrown out of school.”

Dr. Wilens reported that he has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. He has also served as a consultant to Vallon and has a licensing/collaborative agreement with Ironshore and 3D Therapy.

As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to decline across the United States, all states but one -- Hawaii -- have dropped their mask mandates or have announced plans to do so in coming weeks.

Retailers and cruises are following along, with Apple and Target stores lifting their own mask mandates this week. Cruise lines such as Norwegian and Royal Caribbean International have said mask requirements will be relaxed for vaccinated passengers, according to the Washington Post.

But guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn’t changed even as the Omicron variant recedes across the country. Vaccinated people should wear masks when indoors in areas of “substantial or high transmission,” which still covers more than 95% of the country, according to a CDC map.

As daily cases continue to fall, the CDC is reviewing its recommendations, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a briefing last week.

“We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing, when these metrics are better, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things worsen,” she said.

As states relax mask rules, county and city officials are now deciding what to do in their jurisdictions. Vaccinated residents in Los Angeles County may soon be able to go maskless in indoor settings that check for proof of vaccination, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Chicago will also end its mask and COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public places such as restaurants Feb. 28, according to the Chicago Tribune. Illinois will end a statewide indoor mask mandate on the same day. Masks will still be required in health care settings and public transmit.

State and local school boards are debating their mask policies as well. The Maryland State Board of Education voted Feb. 22 to allow local school districts to decide whether students must wear face coverings in school, according to the Associated Press. The update will take effect on March 1 if approved by a Maryland General Assembly committee that oversees the rule.

In New York, state officials have begun lifting mask rules. At the same time, 58% of New York voters want to see early March data before school mask mandates are ended, according to a new poll, released Feb. 22 by the Siena College Research Institute. About 45% of those polled said the state’s indoor public mask mandate should also still be in place.

The debate about wearing masks in schools will likely continue, especially as districts get caught between health authorities and parents, according to the Wall Street Journal. District officials in several states are receiving hundreds of emails daily from both sides, with parents calling for mask rules to end or saying that requirements should remain in place for now to keep kids safe.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to decline across the United States, all states but one -- Hawaii -- have dropped their mask mandates or have announced plans to do so in coming weeks.

Retailers and cruises are following along, with Apple and Target stores lifting their own mask mandates this week. Cruise lines such as Norwegian and Royal Caribbean International have said mask requirements will be relaxed for vaccinated passengers, according to the Washington Post.

But guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn’t changed even as the Omicron variant recedes across the country. Vaccinated people should wear masks when indoors in areas of “substantial or high transmission,” which still covers more than 95% of the country, according to a CDC map.

As daily cases continue to fall, the CDC is reviewing its recommendations, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a briefing last week.

“We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing, when these metrics are better, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things worsen,” she said.

As states relax mask rules, county and city officials are now deciding what to do in their jurisdictions. Vaccinated residents in Los Angeles County may soon be able to go maskless in indoor settings that check for proof of vaccination, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Chicago will also end its mask and COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public places such as restaurants Feb. 28, according to the Chicago Tribune. Illinois will end a statewide indoor mask mandate on the same day. Masks will still be required in health care settings and public transmit.

State and local school boards are debating their mask policies as well. The Maryland State Board of Education voted Feb. 22 to allow local school districts to decide whether students must wear face coverings in school, according to the Associated Press. The update will take effect on March 1 if approved by a Maryland General Assembly committee that oversees the rule.

In New York, state officials have begun lifting mask rules. At the same time, 58% of New York voters want to see early March data before school mask mandates are ended, according to a new poll, released Feb. 22 by the Siena College Research Institute. About 45% of those polled said the state’s indoor public mask mandate should also still be in place.

The debate about wearing masks in schools will likely continue, especially as districts get caught between health authorities and parents, according to the Wall Street Journal. District officials in several states are receiving hundreds of emails daily from both sides, with parents calling for mask rules to end or saying that requirements should remain in place for now to keep kids safe.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to decline across the United States, all states but one -- Hawaii -- have dropped their mask mandates or have announced plans to do so in coming weeks.

Retailers and cruises are following along, with Apple and Target stores lifting their own mask mandates this week. Cruise lines such as Norwegian and Royal Caribbean International have said mask requirements will be relaxed for vaccinated passengers, according to the Washington Post.

But guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn’t changed even as the Omicron variant recedes across the country. Vaccinated people should wear masks when indoors in areas of “substantial or high transmission,” which still covers more than 95% of the country, according to a CDC map.

As daily cases continue to fall, the CDC is reviewing its recommendations, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a briefing last week.

“We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing, when these metrics are better, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things worsen,” she said.

As states relax mask rules, county and city officials are now deciding what to do in their jurisdictions. Vaccinated residents in Los Angeles County may soon be able to go maskless in indoor settings that check for proof of vaccination, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Chicago will also end its mask and COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public places such as restaurants Feb. 28, according to the Chicago Tribune. Illinois will end a statewide indoor mask mandate on the same day. Masks will still be required in health care settings and public transmit.

State and local school boards are debating their mask policies as well. The Maryland State Board of Education voted Feb. 22 to allow local school districts to decide whether students must wear face coverings in school, according to the Associated Press. The update will take effect on March 1 if approved by a Maryland General Assembly committee that oversees the rule.

In New York, state officials have begun lifting mask rules. At the same time, 58% of New York voters want to see early March data before school mask mandates are ended, according to a new poll, released Feb. 22 by the Siena College Research Institute. About 45% of those polled said the state’s indoor public mask mandate should also still be in place.

The debate about wearing masks in schools will likely continue, especially as districts get caught between health authorities and parents, according to the Wall Street Journal. District officials in several states are receiving hundreds of emails daily from both sides, with parents calling for mask rules to end or saying that requirements should remain in place for now to keep kids safe.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

About 80% of people infected with Zika virus show no symptoms, and that’s particularly problematic during pregnancy. The infection can cause birth defects and is the origin of numerous cases of microcephaly and other neurologic impairments.

The large amount of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Brazilian cities, in addition to social and political problems, facilitated the spread of Zika to the point that the country recorded its highest number of congenital Zika syndrome notifications from 2015 to 2018. Since then, researchers have investigated the extent of the problem.

One of the most compelling findings about the dramatic legacy of Zika in Brazil was published Feb. 24 in The New England Journal of Medicine: After tracking 11,481,215 children born alive in Brazil up to 36 months of age between the years 2015 and 2018, the researchers found that the mortality rate was about 12 times higher among children with congenital Zika syndrome in comparison to children without the syndrome. The study is the first to follow children with congenital Zika syndrome for 3 years and to report mortality in this group.

“This difference persisted throughout the first 3 years of life,” Enny S. Paixão, PhD, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Fiocruz-Bahia’s Instituto Gonçalo Moniz, in Brazil, said in an interview.

At the end of the study period, the mortality rate was 52.6 deaths (95% confidence interval, 47.6-58.0) per 1,000 person-years among children with congenital Zika syndrome and 5.6 deaths (95% CI, 5.6-5.7) per 1,000 person-years among those without the syndrome. The mortality rate ratio among children with congenital Zika syndrome, compared with those without it, was 11.3 (95% CI, 10.2-12.4). Data analysis also showed that the 3,308 children with the syndrome were born to mothers who were younger and had fewer years of study when compared to the mothers of their 11,477,907 counterparts without the syndrome.

“If the children survived the first month of life, they had a greater chance of surviving during childhood, because the mortality rates drop,” said Dr. Paixão. “In children with congenital Zika syndrome, this rate also drops, but slowly. The more we stratified by period – neonatal, post neonatal, and the period from the first to the third year of life – the more we saw the relative risk increase. After the first year of life, children with the syndrome were almost 22 times more likely to die compared to children without it. It was hard to believe the data.” Dr. Paixão added that the mortality observed in this study is comparable with the findings of previous studies.

In addition to the large sample size – more than 11 million children – another unique aspect of the work was the comparison with healthy live births. “Previous studies didn’t have this comparison group,” Dr. said Paixão.

Perhaps the major challenge of the study, Dr. Paixão explained, was the fragmentation of the data. “In Brazil we have high-quality data systems, but they are not interconnected. We have a database with all live births, another with mortality records, and another with all children with congenital Zika syndrome. The first big challenge was putting all this information together.”

The solution found by the researchers was to use data linkage – bringing information about the same person from different data banks to create a richer dataset. Basically, they linked the data from the live births registry with the deaths that occurred in the studied age group plus around 18,000 children with congenital Zika syndrome. This was done, said Dr. Paixão, by choosing some identifying variables (such as mother’s name, address, and age) and using an algorithm that evaluates the probability that the “N” in one database is the same person in another database.

“This is expensive, complex, [and] involves super-powerful computers and a lot of researchers,” she said.

The impressive mortality data for children with congenital Zika syndrome obtained by the group of researchers made it inevitable to think about how the country should address this terrible legacy.

“The first and most important recommendation is that the country needs to invest in primary care, so that women don’t get Zika during pregnancy and children aren’t at risk of getting the syndrome,” said Dr. Paixão.

As for the affected population, she highlighted the need to deepen the understanding of the syndrome’s natural history to improve survival and quality of life of affected children and their families. One possibility that was recently discussed by the group of researchers is to carry out a study on the causes of hospitalization of children with the syndrome to develop appropriate protocols and procedures that reduce admissions and death in this population.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About 80% of people infected with Zika virus show no symptoms, and that’s particularly problematic during pregnancy. The infection can cause birth defects and is the origin of numerous cases of microcephaly and other neurologic impairments.

The large amount of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Brazilian cities, in addition to social and political problems, facilitated the spread of Zika to the point that the country recorded its highest number of congenital Zika syndrome notifications from 2015 to 2018. Since then, researchers have investigated the extent of the problem.

One of the most compelling findings about the dramatic legacy of Zika in Brazil was published Feb. 24 in The New England Journal of Medicine: After tracking 11,481,215 children born alive in Brazil up to 36 months of age between the years 2015 and 2018, the researchers found that the mortality rate was about 12 times higher among children with congenital Zika syndrome in comparison to children without the syndrome. The study is the first to follow children with congenital Zika syndrome for 3 years and to report mortality in this group.

“This difference persisted throughout the first 3 years of life,” Enny S. Paixão, PhD, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Fiocruz-Bahia’s Instituto Gonçalo Moniz, in Brazil, said in an interview.

At the end of the study period, the mortality rate was 52.6 deaths (95% confidence interval, 47.6-58.0) per 1,000 person-years among children with congenital Zika syndrome and 5.6 deaths (95% CI, 5.6-5.7) per 1,000 person-years among those without the syndrome. The mortality rate ratio among children with congenital Zika syndrome, compared with those without it, was 11.3 (95% CI, 10.2-12.4). Data analysis also showed that the 3,308 children with the syndrome were born to mothers who were younger and had fewer years of study when compared to the mothers of their 11,477,907 counterparts without the syndrome.

“If the children survived the first month of life, they had a greater chance of surviving during childhood, because the mortality rates drop,” said Dr. Paixão. “In children with congenital Zika syndrome, this rate also drops, but slowly. The more we stratified by period – neonatal, post neonatal, and the period from the first to the third year of life – the more we saw the relative risk increase. After the first year of life, children with the syndrome were almost 22 times more likely to die compared to children without it. It was hard to believe the data.” Dr. Paixão added that the mortality observed in this study is comparable with the findings of previous studies.

In addition to the large sample size – more than 11 million children – another unique aspect of the work was the comparison with healthy live births. “Previous studies didn’t have this comparison group,” Dr. said Paixão.

Perhaps the major challenge of the study, Dr. Paixão explained, was the fragmentation of the data. “In Brazil we have high-quality data systems, but they are not interconnected. We have a database with all live births, another with mortality records, and another with all children with congenital Zika syndrome. The first big challenge was putting all this information together.”

The solution found by the researchers was to use data linkage – bringing information about the same person from different data banks to create a richer dataset. Basically, they linked the data from the live births registry with the deaths that occurred in the studied age group plus around 18,000 children with congenital Zika syndrome. This was done, said Dr. Paixão, by choosing some identifying variables (such as mother’s name, address, and age) and using an algorithm that evaluates the probability that the “N” in one database is the same person in another database.

“This is expensive, complex, [and] involves super-powerful computers and a lot of researchers,” she said.

The impressive mortality data for children with congenital Zika syndrome obtained by the group of researchers made it inevitable to think about how the country should address this terrible legacy.

“The first and most important recommendation is that the country needs to invest in primary care, so that women don’t get Zika during pregnancy and children aren’t at risk of getting the syndrome,” said Dr. Paixão.

As for the affected population, she highlighted the need to deepen the understanding of the syndrome’s natural history to improve survival and quality of life of affected children and their families. One possibility that was recently discussed by the group of researchers is to carry out a study on the causes of hospitalization of children with the syndrome to develop appropriate protocols and procedures that reduce admissions and death in this population.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About 80% of people infected with Zika virus show no symptoms, and that’s particularly problematic during pregnancy. The infection can cause birth defects and is the origin of numerous cases of microcephaly and other neurologic impairments.

The large amount of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Brazilian cities, in addition to social and political problems, facilitated the spread of Zika to the point that the country recorded its highest number of congenital Zika syndrome notifications from 2015 to 2018. Since then, researchers have investigated the extent of the problem.

One of the most compelling findings about the dramatic legacy of Zika in Brazil was published Feb. 24 in The New England Journal of Medicine: After tracking 11,481,215 children born alive in Brazil up to 36 months of age between the years 2015 and 2018, the researchers found that the mortality rate was about 12 times higher among children with congenital Zika syndrome in comparison to children without the syndrome. The study is the first to follow children with congenital Zika syndrome for 3 years and to report mortality in this group.

“This difference persisted throughout the first 3 years of life,” Enny S. Paixão, PhD, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Fiocruz-Bahia’s Instituto Gonçalo Moniz, in Brazil, said in an interview.

At the end of the study period, the mortality rate was 52.6 deaths (95% confidence interval, 47.6-58.0) per 1,000 person-years among children with congenital Zika syndrome and 5.6 deaths (95% CI, 5.6-5.7) per 1,000 person-years among those without the syndrome. The mortality rate ratio among children with congenital Zika syndrome, compared with those without it, was 11.3 (95% CI, 10.2-12.4). Data analysis also showed that the 3,308 children with the syndrome were born to mothers who were younger and had fewer years of study when compared to the mothers of their 11,477,907 counterparts without the syndrome.

“If the children survived the first month of life, they had a greater chance of surviving during childhood, because the mortality rates drop,” said Dr. Paixão. “In children with congenital Zika syndrome, this rate also drops, but slowly. The more we stratified by period – neonatal, post neonatal, and the period from the first to the third year of life – the more we saw the relative risk increase. After the first year of life, children with the syndrome were almost 22 times more likely to die compared to children without it. It was hard to believe the data.” Dr. Paixão added that the mortality observed in this study is comparable with the findings of previous studies.

In addition to the large sample size – more than 11 million children – another unique aspect of the work was the comparison with healthy live births. “Previous studies didn’t have this comparison group,” Dr. said Paixão.

Perhaps the major challenge of the study, Dr. Paixão explained, was the fragmentation of the data. “In Brazil we have high-quality data systems, but they are not interconnected. We have a database with all live births, another with mortality records, and another with all children with congenital Zika syndrome. The first big challenge was putting all this information together.”

The solution found by the researchers was to use data linkage – bringing information about the same person from different data banks to create a richer dataset. Basically, they linked the data from the live births registry with the deaths that occurred in the studied age group plus around 18,000 children with congenital Zika syndrome. This was done, said Dr. Paixão, by choosing some identifying variables (such as mother’s name, address, and age) and using an algorithm that evaluates the probability that the “N” in one database is the same person in another database.

“This is expensive, complex, [and] involves super-powerful computers and a lot of researchers,” she said.

The impressive mortality data for children with congenital Zika syndrome obtained by the group of researchers made it inevitable to think about how the country should address this terrible legacy.

“The first and most important recommendation is that the country needs to invest in primary care, so that women don’t get Zika during pregnancy and children aren’t at risk of getting the syndrome,” said Dr. Paixão.

As for the affected population, she highlighted the need to deepen the understanding of the syndrome’s natural history to improve survival and quality of life of affected children and their families. One possibility that was recently discussed by the group of researchers is to carry out a study on the causes of hospitalization of children with the syndrome to develop appropriate protocols and procedures that reduce admissions and death in this population.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Big Vegetable has lied to us all

Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.

Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.

nneem/Pixabay

For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.

Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.

The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
 

The good old days of surgery?

Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.

Petar Ubiparip/Pixabay

But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.

One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.

What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.

The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.

Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
 

I hate that song, with reason

Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.

MPI for Empirical Aesthetics

Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.

“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.

Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.

But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.

So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.

Big Vegetable has lied to us all

Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.

Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.

nneem/Pixabay

For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.

Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.

The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
 

The good old days of surgery?

Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.

Petar Ubiparip/Pixabay

But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.

One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.

What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.

The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.

Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
 

I hate that song, with reason

Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.

MPI for Empirical Aesthetics

Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.

“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.

Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.

But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.

So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.

Big Vegetable has lied to us all

Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.

Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.

nneem/Pixabay

For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.

Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.

The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
 

The good old days of surgery?

Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.

Petar Ubiparip/Pixabay

But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.

One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.

What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.

The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.

Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
 

I hate that song, with reason

Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.

MPI for Empirical Aesthetics

Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.

“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.

Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.

But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.

So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.

Clinicians should do more to encourage people with hemophilia to undertake regular physical activity and sporting activities, a panel of Italian experts has advised.

“Regular physical activity can increase joint stability and function, reduce the risk of injury, and improve quality of life in people with hemophilia,” they wrote in a consensus paper published in Blood Transfusion.

Physical activity is not only recommended by the World Federation of Hemophilia for people with this bleeding disorder, but also recommended for everyone, depending on their age, by the World Health Organization.

People with hemophilia “are not exempt” from the WHO recommendations, noted Dr. Chiara Biasoli of the unit of transfusion medicine and Centre for Inherited Bleeding Disorders, Maurizio Bufalini Hospital in Cesena, Italy, and fellow expert panel members.
 

MEMO expert consensus project

To help clinicians decide when and how to recommend physical exercise to people with hemophilia, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues initiated the MEMO (Movement for Persons With Haemophilia) expert consensus project. The aim was to offer some clear practical guidance for routine practice.

The project began with a core group of 11 hemophilia experts meeting virtually in early 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The MEMO scientific committee, as they became known, formulated a set of consensus statements which they then put before members of the Italian Association of Hemophilia Centres, asking them to vote online on their level of agreement with each statement.

A modified Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus, with statements that scored 7 or higher on a 9-point rating scale moving forward into the next round of voting. A total of three voting rounds was made, which took into account the views of 40 experts, overall.
 

Overview of the MEMO consensus statements

The MEMO consensus statements cover three topic areas: the first four statements focus on the impact of hemophilia on movement, the next three give physical activity recommendations, and the final three look at choice and management of sporting activities.

Regarding the impact of hemophilia on movement, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues noted that “overweight and obesity are an increasing problem in PwH” and, due to their known association with poor physical health, urgently need to be addressed.

Perhaps “insufficient education by hematologists and other invoiced specialists” is at play, they suggested. Importantly, in children, “parents’ fears with consequent overprotection” may be contributing factors.

Not only is movement beneficial for improving joint function, they stated, but it’s also crucial to improving bone density and reducing the risk of joint bleeds.

Even people with inhibitors should be encouraged to be active more regularly, the expert panel said. This should of course be done with “particular caution and monitoring of the effectiveness of prophylaxis for the prevention of acute bleeding events, so that physical activity is conducted safely.”

The panel’s recommendations on sporting activities include the advice to work in a multidisciplinary team that involves hematologists, musculoskeletal specialists and specialists in sports medicine, with the latter helping decide on what sporting activity might be most appropriate. They also suggest that participation in sport should be encouraged from a young age, noting that the Canadian Hemophilia Society has issued some good tips in that regard.

Alongside the recommendations the MEMO expert panel has created four “pyramids of movement” to help clinicians visualize and discuss the recommendations with their patients.

“Physical activity can be considered as a low price intervention that can prevent/reduce the occurrence of chronic diseases and should be further encouraged,” Dr. Biasoli and fellow MEMO expert panel members concluded.

The members of the MEMO expert panel disclosed multiple financial ties with pharmaceutical companies, but none are relevant to the recommendations they made.

Clinicians should do more to encourage people with hemophilia to undertake regular physical activity and sporting activities, a panel of Italian experts has advised.

“Regular physical activity can increase joint stability and function, reduce the risk of injury, and improve quality of life in people with hemophilia,” they wrote in a consensus paper published in Blood Transfusion.

Physical activity is not only recommended by the World Federation of Hemophilia for people with this bleeding disorder, but also recommended for everyone, depending on their age, by the World Health Organization.

People with hemophilia “are not exempt” from the WHO recommendations, noted Dr. Chiara Biasoli of the unit of transfusion medicine and Centre for Inherited Bleeding Disorders, Maurizio Bufalini Hospital in Cesena, Italy, and fellow expert panel members.
 

MEMO expert consensus project

To help clinicians decide when and how to recommend physical exercise to people with hemophilia, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues initiated the MEMO (Movement for Persons With Haemophilia) expert consensus project. The aim was to offer some clear practical guidance for routine practice.

The project began with a core group of 11 hemophilia experts meeting virtually in early 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The MEMO scientific committee, as they became known, formulated a set of consensus statements which they then put before members of the Italian Association of Hemophilia Centres, asking them to vote online on their level of agreement with each statement.

A modified Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus, with statements that scored 7 or higher on a 9-point rating scale moving forward into the next round of voting. A total of three voting rounds was made, which took into account the views of 40 experts, overall.
 

Overview of the MEMO consensus statements

The MEMO consensus statements cover three topic areas: the first four statements focus on the impact of hemophilia on movement, the next three give physical activity recommendations, and the final three look at choice and management of sporting activities.

Regarding the impact of hemophilia on movement, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues noted that “overweight and obesity are an increasing problem in PwH” and, due to their known association with poor physical health, urgently need to be addressed.

Perhaps “insufficient education by hematologists and other invoiced specialists” is at play, they suggested. Importantly, in children, “parents’ fears with consequent overprotection” may be contributing factors.

Not only is movement beneficial for improving joint function, they stated, but it’s also crucial to improving bone density and reducing the risk of joint bleeds.

Even people with inhibitors should be encouraged to be active more regularly, the expert panel said. This should of course be done with “particular caution and monitoring of the effectiveness of prophylaxis for the prevention of acute bleeding events, so that physical activity is conducted safely.”

The panel’s recommendations on sporting activities include the advice to work in a multidisciplinary team that involves hematologists, musculoskeletal specialists and specialists in sports medicine, with the latter helping decide on what sporting activity might be most appropriate. They also suggest that participation in sport should be encouraged from a young age, noting that the Canadian Hemophilia Society has issued some good tips in that regard.

Alongside the recommendations the MEMO expert panel has created four “pyramids of movement” to help clinicians visualize and discuss the recommendations with their patients.

“Physical activity can be considered as a low price intervention that can prevent/reduce the occurrence of chronic diseases and should be further encouraged,” Dr. Biasoli and fellow MEMO expert panel members concluded.

The members of the MEMO expert panel disclosed multiple financial ties with pharmaceutical companies, but none are relevant to the recommendations they made.

Clinicians should do more to encourage people with hemophilia to undertake regular physical activity and sporting activities, a panel of Italian experts has advised.

“Regular physical activity can increase joint stability and function, reduce the risk of injury, and improve quality of life in people with hemophilia,” they wrote in a consensus paper published in Blood Transfusion.

Physical activity is not only recommended by the World Federation of Hemophilia for people with this bleeding disorder, but also recommended for everyone, depending on their age, by the World Health Organization.

People with hemophilia “are not exempt” from the WHO recommendations, noted Dr. Chiara Biasoli of the unit of transfusion medicine and Centre for Inherited Bleeding Disorders, Maurizio Bufalini Hospital in Cesena, Italy, and fellow expert panel members.
 

MEMO expert consensus project

To help clinicians decide when and how to recommend physical exercise to people with hemophilia, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues initiated the MEMO (Movement for Persons With Haemophilia) expert consensus project. The aim was to offer some clear practical guidance for routine practice.

The project began with a core group of 11 hemophilia experts meeting virtually in early 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The MEMO scientific committee, as they became known, formulated a set of consensus statements which they then put before members of the Italian Association of Hemophilia Centres, asking them to vote online on their level of agreement with each statement.

A modified Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus, with statements that scored 7 or higher on a 9-point rating scale moving forward into the next round of voting. A total of three voting rounds was made, which took into account the views of 40 experts, overall.
 

Overview of the MEMO consensus statements

The MEMO consensus statements cover three topic areas: the first four statements focus on the impact of hemophilia on movement, the next three give physical activity recommendations, and the final three look at choice and management of sporting activities.

Regarding the impact of hemophilia on movement, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues noted that “overweight and obesity are an increasing problem in PwH” and, due to their known association with poor physical health, urgently need to be addressed.

Perhaps “insufficient education by hematologists and other invoiced specialists” is at play, they suggested. Importantly, in children, “parents’ fears with consequent overprotection” may be contributing factors.

Not only is movement beneficial for improving joint function, they stated, but it’s also crucial to improving bone density and reducing the risk of joint bleeds.

Even people with inhibitors should be encouraged to be active more regularly, the expert panel said. This should of course be done with “particular caution and monitoring of the effectiveness of prophylaxis for the prevention of acute bleeding events, so that physical activity is conducted safely.”

The panel’s recommendations on sporting activities include the advice to work in a multidisciplinary team that involves hematologists, musculoskeletal specialists and specialists in sports medicine, with the latter helping decide on what sporting activity might be most appropriate. They also suggest that participation in sport should be encouraged from a young age, noting that the Canadian Hemophilia Society has issued some good tips in that regard.

Alongside the recommendations the MEMO expert panel has created four “pyramids of movement” to help clinicians visualize and discuss the recommendations with their patients.

“Physical activity can be considered as a low price intervention that can prevent/reduce the occurrence of chronic diseases and should be further encouraged,” Dr. Biasoli and fellow MEMO expert panel members concluded.

The members of the MEMO expert panel disclosed multiple financial ties with pharmaceutical companies, but none are relevant to the recommendations they made.

The birth rate for U.S. teenagers dropped 3% in counties where a federally funded sex education program was introduced, a recently published paper says.

Researchers concentrated on the effects of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program (TPP), which was introduced during the Obama administration and administered on the county level. TPP programs provide more information on sex, contraception, and reproductive health than abstinence-only programs, the paper said.

“Sex education in the United States has been hotly debated among researchers, policy makers, and the public,” Nicholas Mark, a doctoral candidate in New York University’s department of sociology and the lead author of the paper, said in a news release. “Our analysis provides evidence that funding for more comprehensive sex education led to an overall reduction in the teen birth rate at the county level of more than 3%.”

Researchers examined teen birth rates in 55 counties from 1996 to 2009, before TTP, and from 2010 to 2016, after TTP. Next, they compared teen birth rates in the 55 counties with teen birth rates in 2,800 counties that didn’t have the funding in the years before and after TPP was introduced.

In the 55 counties, teen birth rates fell 1.5% in the first year of TTP funding and fell about 7% by the fifth year of funding, for an average drop of 3%, the news release said.

“We’ve known for some time that abstinence-only programs are ineffective at reducing teen birth rates,” said Lawrence Wu, a professor in NYU’s department of sociology and the paper’s senior author. “This work shows that more wide-reaching sex education programs – those not limited to abstinence – are successful in lowering rates of teen births.”

The paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

The paper said the findings probably understate the true effect of more comprehensive sex education at the individual level.

The authors said the findings are important because U.S. women are more likely to become mothers in their teens than women in other developed nations, with many teen pregnancies reported as unintended, the authors said.

As of 2020, teen birth rates and the number of births to teen mothers had dropped steadily since 1990. Teen birth rates fell by 70% over 3 decades.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The birth rate for U.S. teenagers dropped 3% in counties where a federally funded sex education program was introduced, a recently published paper says.

Researchers concentrated on the effects of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program (TPP), which was introduced during the Obama administration and administered on the county level. TPP programs provide more information on sex, contraception, and reproductive health than abstinence-only programs, the paper said.

“Sex education in the United States has been hotly debated among researchers, policy makers, and the public,” Nicholas Mark, a doctoral candidate in New York University’s department of sociology and the lead author of the paper, said in a news release. “Our analysis provides evidence that funding for more comprehensive sex education led to an overall reduction in the teen birth rate at the county level of more than 3%.”

Researchers examined teen birth rates in 55 counties from 1996 to 2009, before TTP, and from 2010 to 2016, after TTP. Next, they compared teen birth rates in the 55 counties with teen birth rates in 2,800 counties that didn’t have the funding in the years before and after TPP was introduced.

In the 55 counties, teen birth rates fell 1.5% in the first year of TTP funding and fell about 7% by the fifth year of funding, for an average drop of 3%, the news release said.

“We’ve known for some time that abstinence-only programs are ineffective at reducing teen birth rates,” said Lawrence Wu, a professor in NYU’s department of sociology and the paper’s senior author. “This work shows that more wide-reaching sex education programs – those not limited to abstinence – are successful in lowering rates of teen births.”

The paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

The paper said the findings probably understate the true effect of more comprehensive sex education at the individual level.

The authors said the findings are important because U.S. women are more likely to become mothers in their teens than women in other developed nations, with many teen pregnancies reported as unintended, the authors said.

As of 2020, teen birth rates and the number of births to teen mothers had dropped steadily since 1990. Teen birth rates fell by 70% over 3 decades.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The birth rate for U.S. teenagers dropped 3% in counties where a federally funded sex education program was introduced, a recently published paper says.

Researchers concentrated on the effects of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program (TPP), which was introduced during the Obama administration and administered on the county level. TPP programs provide more information on sex, contraception, and reproductive health than abstinence-only programs, the paper said.

“Sex education in the United States has been hotly debated among researchers, policy makers, and the public,” Nicholas Mark, a doctoral candidate in New York University’s department of sociology and the lead author of the paper, said in a news release. “Our analysis provides evidence that funding for more comprehensive sex education led to an overall reduction in the teen birth rate at the county level of more than 3%.”

Researchers examined teen birth rates in 55 counties from 1996 to 2009, before TTP, and from 2010 to 2016, after TTP. Next, they compared teen birth rates in the 55 counties with teen birth rates in 2,800 counties that didn’t have the funding in the years before and after TPP was introduced.

In the 55 counties, teen birth rates fell 1.5% in the first year of TTP funding and fell about 7% by the fifth year of funding, for an average drop of 3%, the news release said.

“We’ve known for some time that abstinence-only programs are ineffective at reducing teen birth rates,” said Lawrence Wu, a professor in NYU’s department of sociology and the paper’s senior author. “This work shows that more wide-reaching sex education programs – those not limited to abstinence – are successful in lowering rates of teen births.”

The paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

The paper said the findings probably understate the true effect of more comprehensive sex education at the individual level.

The authors said the findings are important because U.S. women are more likely to become mothers in their teens than women in other developed nations, with many teen pregnancies reported as unintended, the authors said.

As of 2020, teen birth rates and the number of births to teen mothers had dropped steadily since 1990. Teen birth rates fell by 70% over 3 decades.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.